[malvosenior]

If a downturn comes, it will be due to larger economic reasons. If firms aren't profitable and need to cut costs, having a union that makes that more difficult could actually exacerbate the downturn. I'd rather have to lay off under performers and keep the company in business, than go out of business and have everyone lose their jobs.

[ahelwer]

Corporations are run so they suck as many profits out of the company as possible during the boom times, then "cut costs" (aka dump overboard the workers who created those profits) at the slightest change of the economic winds. Unions change that equation; corporations won't be able to run that strategy, and will maintain a cushion to get through the inevitable downturn.

[malvosenior]

I have never in 20+ years of experience seen a company dump high performing engineers just to lower costs. It's those very engineers that engendered the success the company enjoys. I have seen good teams cut but that's only when macro issues have made it necessary.

[Apocryphon]

You must have worked at places with exceedingly good management, or not at startups.

[FrozenTuna]

If a company has experienced both boom times and recessive economic times, I think its "startup" status is arguable, depending on a few other factors.

[Apocryphon]

A startup can easily experience its own financial downturns and be forced to downsize, and make questionable personnel cuts during those times.

[Animats]

IBM since 2000. HP since Fiorina.

[crimsonalucard]

What you say is true, however these things can be negotiated with a union.

All a union does is give centralized power to the employees. If employees need to be cut for survival or salaries need to be lowered temporarily than these are things that an employer can provide proof of to the union and together with employees as a union work something out.

A union prevents the laying off of employees as a profit boosting measure even when it IS'NT required for survival. That is wrong on every count.

The employees are a greater part of the company than shareholders, board members, owners and C-level executives combined. Employees are not sheep to be herded and they deserve a centralized voice.

[malvosenior]

Someone else made this point elsewhere in the thread but I think it's a good one: As engineers, we have the opportunity to move into management and become entrepreneurs at a rate much greater than traditional industries. I've moved between high level IC and senior management a lot in my career. I've also started my own company. I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry. As such I'm likely to look at solving problems from all sides and negotiating with a union to "prove" that I need to lay people off sounds extremely troubling from an operational and efficiency standpoint. As a high performing IC I'm never at risk of being laid off unless the company really is in existential danger. As a manager I need to be able to let under performers go or lower costs as needed.

[crimsonalucard]

> I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry.

This doesn't make much sense from a numbers perspective. If entrepreneurs and managers manage more than one person then at the very least there should be double the amount of engineers then there are leaders, meaning at best your statements apply to only a third of all software employees if managers all manage 2 people.

Usually this isn't the case. Managers manage up to 5 people so your statements apply to on average 1/6th of all employees.

>As such I'm likely to look at solving problems from all sides and negotiating with a union to "prove" that I need to lay people off sounds extremely troubling from an operational and efficiency standpoint.

The efficiency standpoint is equivalent to the corporate standpoint. There's an additional standpoint you failed to consider. The moral standpoint. A 47 year old father of 3 kids depends on his job as an engineer to support his kids then you come along and fire him to replace him with a kid fresh out of stanford because this kid knows reactjs and will code 12 hour days for half pay.

There is no question, the scenario above is more efficient but it is also ethically wrong. Managers need to take steps to help the employee improve and managers should have their power limited so they cannot fire a father of three just because they don't get along or the kid straight out of stanford is his cousin.

Engineers make up the majority and backbone of a company they are not sheep for you to herd, hire and slaughter based off of operational efficiency.

>As a high performing IC I'm never at risk of being laid off unless the company really is in existential danger.

Good for you. I admire managers who care about the people they employ over managers who are efficient. The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great.

[malvosenior]

Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. If someone is performing well, you keep them if you can afford them (and reward them well!). If they're not doing good, you let them go. That's the same if the employee is 21 or 51. Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person.

> The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great.

In my experience (successfully managing a large amount of people) you can't really turn around underperformers in most cases and expending the energy to do so is harmful to the rest of the team. You should focus on your best employees and let the underperformers go asap. As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer.

[wry_discontent]

> As engineers, we have the opportunity to move into management and become entrepreneurs at a rate much greater than traditional industries.

I've observed this to be true myself, but don't really have a good understanding of _why_ that might be. Do you have any insights?

[malvosenior]

I think it's because technology is incredibly powerful and code + hardware can act as not only organizational structure but as a sort of pseudo employee. When you code you are often designing and implementing business rules, thus acting in a managerial or executive capacity. Software also scales incredibly well. One person may be responsible for building a system that generates immense value (extreme example: Linux and Git both initially created by one person).

The level of responsibility and authority you have as the person responsible for a $10M system can be leveraged to move to different leadership career tracks. I think this bleeds out into the industry at large so VCs recognize that smart engineers make good financial bets.

[diN0bot]

My hypothesis is that this is a function of white collar office work, where one often works closely with management/leadership/mentors, and can build relationships, knowledge and skills that increase one's opportunities the further one progresses in their career, not only in terms of entering management, but also starting a small business or startup.

Unions historically stem from segregation between labor and bosses along multiple dimensions such as skills, day-to-day experience and class.

[lonelappde]

Because it's a professional job despite not needing a formal degree, a and professionals can start their own own businesses.